back to article British cops cuff 660 suspected paedophiles

Hundreds of suspected paedophiles have been arrested by UK police following a six-month-long operation. The majority of cases have yet to carry charges, the National Crime Agency said. The charge sheet so far ranges from possessing indecent images of children to serious sexual assault. The NCA added it had manacled 660 people …

  1. Suricou Raven

    "Additionally, Google has developed a hashing technology for YouTube that places a unique ID mark on illegal child abuse vids. Once a copy is spotted on the service, all other copies are then apparently removed from the web."

    ie, they repurposed their copyright enforcement code.

    1. JetSetJim Silver badge

      Does that mean they continue to publish the watermarked version?

      1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        It means all videos get a unique id

        When a video is identified as child abuse, Google and Microsoft can remove it from any server they control and remove it from search results.

    2. auburnman
      Mushroom

      Devil's Advocate...

      Isn't having CP in your possession strict liability, i.e. someone else put it there is no defence? If Google have such content on UK servers plod are surely duty bound to get cuffing Google employees...

      1. John Bailey

        Re: Devil's Advocate...

        "Isn't having CP in your possession strict liability, i.e. someone else put it there is no defence? If Google have such content on UK servers plod are surely duty bound to get cuffing Google employees..."

        No.

        Safe harbour rules. Google do not check each and every Youtube upload, so can not be held responsible if illegal content turns up through the actions of a service user. And so long as they remove it when informed, no foul on their part.

        1. Ejit

          Re: Devil's Advocate...

          As the DMCA is US legislation perhaps you might care to point to the enabling UK legislation that allows Google "Safe Harbor (Harbour)" in the UK. The equivalent EU arrangement is only in respect of personal data.

          I would not think that Google can rely upon the 2007 Viacom v Google case outside the US.

  2. James Micallef Silver badge

    Good work

    People who are really into producing and distributing kiddie-porn should be locked up for a long, long time. However I hope that anyone nabbed for "possessing indecent images of children" was done for actually indecent images, not for pics of their nekkid nephews/nieces playing in the bath, sketches/drawings in which age is ambiguous/indeterminate etc

    1. Lamont Cranston

      Re: Good work

      Is your downvoter a) pro kiddie porn, or b) anti family photos?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Good work

        Maybe the downvoters realised it was unlikely police have swooped on 600 odd people who have been downloading their own family photos from the "dark web".

        1. Crisp Silver badge

          Re: unlikely

          But not unheard of. Wasn't there a morning TV presenter that got done by the police for that?

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. N2 Silver badge

      Re: Good work

      Agreed, Id have those found guilty castrated & locked up for a long time, the problem is sentences arn't tough enough to stop this proliferating

      1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

        Re: N2

        By that logic, capital punishment should have stopped any crimes it was used to punish throughout history.

        Hint: It didn't. It didn't even stop theft.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: N2

          "Hint: It didn't. It didn't even stop theft."

          But it did lower re-offending rates I believe.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Good work

        >castrated

        and what about the female paedophiles?

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: Good work

          "and what about the female paedophiles?"

          Bunged up?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Good work

      Recently in Australia somebody was successfully prosecuted for having a cartoon image of the Simpsons family having sex. Bad taste certainly, but certainly no children involved. The hype about pedophilia is a bit worrying.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Good work

      I remember Julia Somerville, at that time a household name newsreader, getting arrested for having photos of her child in the bath developed at Boots the Chemist.

      1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

        Re: Good work

        At which time the Boots instore advert for photo processing was a life size free standing cardboard cut-out of a child, seen from behind. A naked child.

        Somerville was shopped by a presumably hypocritical Boots employee, and her arrest details were flogged to the press by a Metropolitan police officer.

  3. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    See ...

    We *needed* those emergency powers ....

    1. alain williams Silver badge

      Re: See ...

      Am I the only one who wonders about the coincidence of timing:

      * government rushes through act for preservation of snooping powers. Ministers cite dangers to this country from terrorism and paedophiles.

      * last week there were increased restrictions of mobile phones, etc, on flights to the USA

      * today 660 suspected paedophiles were arrested after a 6 month operation

      Just what was needed to ensure that the act sailed though Parliament!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: See ...

        The act was sailing through parliament anyway and nothing was going to stop that.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: See ...

          The act was sailing through parliament anyway and nothing was going to stop that.

          But this will placate the Daily Fail readers who otherwise would be outraged - now they will have mind turned away from the loss of privacy angle to screaming about paedophiles in stead.

      2. Anonymous Coward 101

        Re: See ...

        Given the arrests were made using existing powers, I fail to see what they have to do with the new powers?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: See ...

          "Given the arrests were made using existing powers, I fail to see what they have to do with the new powers?"

          I'm guessing you are American right?

          *hint*

          Sarcasm

      3. 2+2=5 Silver badge

        Re: See ...

        Alain, Are you suggesting that the chief constables had a little chat with Cameron along the lines of: "We're about to arrest 660 paedos but we're worried that they'll all get off on a technicality because of this EU judges decision thingy last April. I'm pretty sure May promised us some new legislation just to make certain, but nothing seems to have happened yet. Could you see you way clear to doing something a little sooner? I have a draft white paper here that your chaps could use to get going, so to speak. I've taken the liberty of running it past GCHQ and MI6 and they're on-board with some useful feedback. (In fact they sent their feedback before I even emailed the draft to them.) MI5 of course won't listen to ideas coming 'up through the ranks' but I think they're covered. Anyway, there it is. If you could have a word with May, that would be super...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: See ...

          In fact they sent their feedback before I even emailed the draft to them

          I saw what you did there (and so did they) :)

      4. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        Re: See ...

        "Am I the only one who wonders about the coincidence of timing:

        * government rushes through act for preservation of snooping powers. Ministers cite dangers to this country from terrorism and paedophiles."

        Indeed an astonishing coordinated campagn.

        Proving the "need" for such spying.

        1. Yet Another Commentard

          Re: See ...

          Indeed it "proves" to a politico, or a tame journalist that the increased snoopage on the populous is required.

          To me it proves the police can handle this sort of thing very well without those extra powers. They just made 660 arrests without it, right?

          Maybe all MP's web-use and e-mail should be checked by the rest of us first as a 'test' of the new powers. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear after all.

  4. teebie

    Police declined to explain how they "snared" the suspects

    ...because they don't want anyone to think about Operation Ore, where they arrested hundreds of people, most of whose only 'crime' was to have their credit cards nicked.

    If they actually *have* arrested the right people this time then congratulations, but based on past form I suspect they ahve arrested more passers-by that paedos

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Police declined to explain how they "snared" the suspects

      Given their ability in some of the technical fields I do worry if people have been nabbed through possibly amateurish poring over some TOR logs and then passing a dodgily compiled list of IP address over to an overworked incompetent working at an ISP...

      But of course if the end of that process was finding a crapload of CP on someone's hard disk then Jim's your uncle.

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: Police declined to explain how they "snared" the suspects

        I'm getting so cynical by this point that I suspect the way it really happened was this:

        Cameron picks up phone: "Chief inspector, we're getting pilloried in the media. I want you to arrest a huge number of paedophiles so we look good."

        Chief Inspector: "Righty-ho. I'll get a list of the ones we reckon we have enough evidence on."

        Cameron: "Oh, don't worry about whether you can get convictions. The plebs will have forgotten about it by the time it actually gets that far. Just make sure the arrest count is high"

        Probably I'm just too cynical but given the crap I've seen pulled by the government over the last few years, I'm finding it hard to trust their intent that much. I think they're even willing to exploit paedophillia as a political tool these days.

        1. Jonathan Richards 1
          Stop

          Government control the police...

          ...they wish. Your scenario kind of implies that there's one "Chief Inspector" that can make stuff like this happen. In fact there are nearly fifty independent constabularies in the UK, each led by a Chief Constable (or equivalent; Chief Inspector is a relatively low rank). So Mr Cameron would have to be able to have dozens of top policemen to go "Righty-ho", and you only have to look at the Andrew Mitchell case to know how popular the politicos are with the constabulary, and to see how this sort of conspiracy simply wouldn't work, and wouldn't remain secret for more than a few minutes if any particular PM were to try it.

        2. Intractable Potsherd

          Re: Police declined to explain how they "snared" the suspects

          @ h4rm0ny - when I saw this on the news last night, I said to Mrs IP that, if we follow the cases, there will be a conviction rate of 10% or less. My opinion hasn't changed.

    2. emmanuel goldstein

      Re: Police declined to explain how they "snared" the suspects

      they claim to be monitoring and interdicting people using tor. I don't buy that. tor is still pretty much opaque to law enforcement.

      and whilst I'm glad they've busted a load of perverts, I'm also glad there are parts of the internet that are truly free.

    3. Tom 35 Silver badge

      Re: Police declined to explain how they "snared" the suspects

      Yes IF they have arrested people found with actual kiddy porn... Good Job!

      If they were an IP in a log file, or a couple of thumbnail images, or a cartoon that looked like she might be under age, or credit cards again. BAD. "Kill them all and let God sort them out" is not how you should run a police force.

  5. ElReg!comments!Pierre Silver badge

    for some definition of paedophile...

    Given the sentence:

    Some of the people who start by accessing indecent images online go on to abuse children directly. So the operation is not only about catching people who have already offended – it is about influencing potential offenders before they cross that line.

    it is likely that a non-negligible percentage of the cuffed "suspects" did little more than clicking a malicious mislabeled link on 4chan (or somewhere equivalent). I prticularly like the bit about catching people before they cross the line, it has a delicious Minority Report to it. But pumping up the stats is good for the bill...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: for some definition of paedophile...

      "it is likely that a non-negligible percentage of the cuffed "suspects" did little more than clicking a malicious mislabeled link on 4chan (or somewhere equivalent). But pumping up the stats is good for the bill..."

      Is that going to be your excuse then? ;)

      It's one thing to claim someone tricked you into viewing it but it's a whole different story when your search history shows you purposely searched for underaged people. The police do not spend 6 months investigating and then make an arrest for a handful of links in someones history, many of the people that got off before were let off due to technicalities or "lack of evidence" rather than being cleared of being a nonce and most of them had a browser history chocked full of questionable material.

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: for some definition of paedophile...

        >>" many of the people that got off before were let off due to technicalities or "lack of evidence" rather than being cleared of being a nonce and most of them had a browser history chocked full of questionable material."

        Not to say that this isn't the case, but the obvious question is how would you know this? Are you an officer involved? Seems unlikely. Therefore the above is presumably just conjecture?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: for some definition of paedophile...

          "Not to say that this isn't the case, but the obvious question is how would you know this? Are you an officer involved? Seems unlikely. Therefore the above is presumably just conjecture?"

          I am not in anyway related to those specific cases, however I have been involved (on the prosecuting side of course) in cases very similar to this and I know that the amount of evidence required by the CPS to even bring the cases to court is massively more than people seem to think. Calling me a technical consultant on cases like this would not be far from the truth.

          Many people (in my personal experience) have gotten off by saying "it's not illegal, she's 16" and when proven the courts had no choice but to drop the case. Even though it is clear that the 16 year old had been manipulated over the years into "falling in love" with the much older "groomer", but the lack of evidence of "grooming" means the case was dropped.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: for some definition of paedophile...

            AC you are M W-T and I claim my £5.

            1. Swarthy Silver badge

              Re: for some definition of paedophile...(@Ivan 4)

              Really? I was thinking it was Claire Perry.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: for some definition of paedophile...

            "I know that the amount of evidence required by the CPS to even bring the cases to court is massively more than people seem to think. "

            Being a cynic I would say that the amount of real evidence obtained is often irrelevant. Once the Police have decided that there is the prospect of a career enhancing case - then they keep going. A blind alley is often attributed to "clever criminals" or "lying witnesses". They can even resort to off the record threats to try to make alleged victims falsely incriminate the alleged perpetrators.

            Naturist families are easy targets. All the Police need is an "anonymous" phone call to trigger an investigation. They know they will find something in the family albums that they can use as a hook for a bigger investigation.

            In one case the Crown Court judge said that if the police hadn't culled a few seconds from a naturist family's home video then he wouldn't have noticed the alleged indecent shot. That was the only prosecution evidence. The defendant pleaded guilty to a "technical offence" to avoid a possible jail sentence. The judge apologised for the severity of the mandatory minimum sentence. He then spent most of his probation playing games of chess with his probation officer who recognised the injustice.

            A naturist family had their children taken away - and took several years to get their conviction quashed. Their offence was having kept some family holiday pictures discarded in the "reject" box.

            A jury threw a case out. Under cross examination the prosecution's star expert witness agreed there was nothing actually indecent about a set of naturist holiday pictures that was the prosecution's only evidence. The judge had repeatedly ruled that the prosecution's expert witness was making personal comments that were outside her professional remit.

            People have been prosecuted for possessing a book that could simultaneously be bought at W H Smith.

            When the police get desperate about how such an investigation is proving fruitless - they can be tempted to mount dawn raids on anyone in an accused's address book. Especially if that address is of a school teacher, scout master, or IT techie. They hope the fishing expedition will turn up something on a PC or phone. By making an arrest on "suspicion of conspiracy to..." they side-step trying to obtain a search warrant from a magistrate with no evidence. They then claim immunity from complaints by having followed "due process".

            These things have happened - and should not have done. Institutions have become numbers games - with the general law-abiding public as their cannon fodder.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: for some definition of paedophile...

        > many of the people that got off before were let off due to technicalities or "lack of evidence" rather than being cleared of being a nonce

        Is there a difference?

        Whether the CPS decide there is insufficient evidence to bring charges, or a jury finds that the prosecution have not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt... either way, one could say that the defendant has been let off due to a "technicality" or a "lack of evidence".

        There is no such thing as "being cleared" of suspicion. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven otherwise"?

      3. Tom 35 Silver badge

        Re: for some definition of paedophile...

        "The police do not spend 6 months investigating and then make an arrest for a handful of links in someones history,"

        They also don't just happen to arrest 600 people at the same time unless it's a circus.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: for some definition of paedophile...

      > it has a delicious Minority Report to it. But pumping up the stats is good for the bill...

      This is the key point.

      I'm all for identifying people that are potentially in need of "help" but I'm not a big fan of what more and more is little more than thought crime.

      Throw the book at child molesters and abusers, but looking at pictures being a crime is a step too far.

      1. Khaptain Silver badge

        Re: for some definition of paedophile...

        @Skelband : Agreed

        > but looking at pictures being a crime is a step too far.

        Imagine the number of arrests the day that looking at the Youporn/Xhamster kind of porn is made illegal ?

        ( Not speaking for myself of course, I definately wouldn't look at naked bodied people, doing things that naked bodied people sometimes do together, or with friends, or with multiple friends).

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: for some definition of paedophile...

        "looking at pictures being a crime is a step too far."

        That's the same defense given against the ivory trade. "it's okay to buy it because I am not directly killing the animals". The fact is that if you stop the demand the supply will dry up. By people actively viewing the images (and a lot of the time paying for them) they are only encouraging more abuse Images to be created, meaning more children are being abused.

        Of course stopping people viewing the images does not stop child abuse outright, but if the lack of advertising (which is pretty much what it is) for child abuse means that one less child is molested by someone that's a win in my book.

        1. Fibbles

          Re: for some definition of paedophile...

          That's the same defense given against the ivory trade. "it's okay to buy it because I am not directly killing the animals". The fact is that if you stop the demand the supply will dry up.

          AFAIK most child pornography is produced by paedophiles. Most active paedophiles are related to their victims. As unfortunate as it is, there's always going to be a supply of this material, regardless of any external demand.

          1. Faye Kane ♀ girl brain

            Re: for some definition of paedophile...

            ==-

            > most child pornography is produced by paedophiles. Most active paedophiles are related to their victims

            HORRIBLE logic! In fact, most porn of all types is produced in volume by porn companies legally in a country where producing it is legal. The yank-off pix you can buy without comment in one place magically becomes "shocking, disgraceful child pornography!" when it crosses an imaginary line separating two countries.

            And that's even before we observe (at least, from what I've come across while looking for other stuff) that the girls in these things are usually having a damn good time and NEVER appear to be coerced.

            Is someone fu cking a 9 year-old? Yes, put a stop to it. But I can testify from my own experience that 14 y/o girls have the same sex desire as 18 year-olds. The only people who declare it "shocking" when 14 year-olds do the same thing everybody wants to do are those who look at "CP" themselves and feel shame and guilt they ought not feel.

            The hypocrisy of men makes me SICK.

            -faye kane ♀ girl brain

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Faye Re: for some definition of paedophile...

              ".....I can testify from my own experience that 14 y/o girls have the same sex desire as 18 year-olds....." Sorry, Faye, but your blog describes activities that I would not only consider most definitely not normal, be they consensual or not, but I would consider grounds for legal intervention if someone had suggested them for my daughter when she was underage. So I would consider your ability to comment on the 'average' teen by relating to your 'experiences' as probably not indicative. You may feel free to spout whatever labels make you feel better about yourself - mysogonist, male chauvinist, repressive, etc. - but that would just be more wasted bandwidth.

              ".....The hypocrisy of men makes me SICK." I have worked with a London-based charity that tries to help kids get off the streets. Many of them have sold themselves at one time or another, often for drugs, but plenty of them have tales of being exploited by women as well as men. You are very blinkered if you think all sexual exploitation or violence is done by men alone.

        2. Graham Marsden
          Childcatcher

          @AC - Re: for some definition of paedophile...

          > if the lack of advertising (which is pretty much what it is) for child abuse means that one less child is molested by someone that's a win in my book.

          Right, because children were never abused *before* the advent of the internet or before the invention of photography or before...

          The fact still remains that most abuse is perpetrated by a close family member or someone who is known to the child and that has and will still happen whether there are pictures out there or not.

          Unfortunately, meanwhile, we get people trotting out the "if XYZ can stop one child fewer from being molested it's a good thing" argument which is then used as a justification by TPTB for more laws and more censorship and Default-on blocking software with secret lists of "unacceptable" websites all based on the cry of "Won't Someone Think of the Children!"

        3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          WTF?

          Re: AC Re: for some definition of paedophile...

          Five down votes for a perfectly reasonable post explaining why stopping kiddie porn is a good idea? So either that means the coppers probably need to add five more to the list, or there really are some sheep on her so busy bleating about 'personal freedom' they really can't see the actual harm and loss of liberty inflicted on the kids involved.

          1. Ross K Silver badge
            Mushroom

            Re: AC for some definition of paedophile...

            Five down votes for a perfectly reasonable post explaining why stopping kiddie porn is a good idea? So either that means the coppers probably need to add five more to the list

            Judging by the downvoting of posts condemning child porn, it would indeed seem like there are more than a few deviants on here who like that kind of thing.

            Keep it up sickos, keep it up...

        4. Tom 35 Silver badge

          Re: for some definition of paedophile...

          That's the same defense given against the ivory trade. "it's okay to buy it because I am not directly killing the animals"

          That is a bit like the "you wouldn't steal a car" line though. Every bit of ivory is part of an elephant, and you can only sell it once. Ivory porn would be a picture of a piano. It might even be a drawing, or CGI rendering of a piano.

        5. Jan 0

          Re: for some definition of paedophile...

          @ac: "That's the same defense given against the ivory trade. "

          Stopping the demand may lessen the real crimes perpetrated at the supply end, but it's an excuse that allows enforcement agencies to concentrate on the low hanging fruit. The people getting off on kiddie porn may be pathetic , but they need treatment not punishment. It's the perpetrators that need to be caught and punished. Every penny spent on investigating and prosecuting consumers, is a penny not spent on pursuing the perpetrators.

          Stop fiddling while Rome burns. The voyeurs are a distraction. Think of the children, stop the actual crimes!

          1. Faye Kane ♀ girl brain

            Re: for some definition of paedophile...

            ==-

            > The people getting off on kiddie porn may be pathetic

            ...Or they may just be normal.

            They may just be human.

            They may just be YOU.

            1. Graham Marsden

              @ Faye Kane ♀ girl brain

              Can I suggest that you put the name of the person you're responding to in the title of your comments as the El Reg forums do not do threading so it's difficult to know who the reply is directed at.

              PS FYI I agree with a lot of your points :-)

      3. Ross K Silver badge

        Re: for some definition of paedophile...

        Throw the book at child molesters and abusers, but looking at pictures being a crime is a step too far.

        I believe the line of thinking is that if you "just" look at images of child abuse, you're enabling the creator of the content - a child has to be abused for the image to be created.

        Not to mention that if you find images of children being abused to be titillating, you most likely have some serious psychological issues.

        Minimising the impact of something like this and dismissing it as a "thought crime" is bullshit. If that's the way you think, you need a kick in the balls.

        1. Graham Marsden
          Childcatcher

          @Ross K - Re: for some definition of paedophile...

          > I believe the line of thinking is that if you "just" look at images of child abuse, you're enabling the creator of the content - a child has to be abused for the image to be created.

          Yes, of course, that is why it is now a crime to possess images such as those in the Japanese Manga and Anime "Big Eyes, Small Mouth" style which are *drawings* that are completely fictitious, that were *never* based on photographs or video of actual acts, but, none the less, will get you arrested because the imaginary participants *look* like children to Western eyes and that's enough for the Tabloid reading public to demand that "Something Must Be Done!" and our Governments are entirely happy to oblige them.

          1. Ross K Silver badge

            Re: @Ross K - for some definition of paedophile...

            Yes, of course, that is why it is now a crime to possess images such as those in the Japanese Manga and Anime "Big Eyes, Small Mouth" style which are *drawings* that are completely fictitious, that were *never* based on photographs or video of actual acts, but, none the less, will get you arrested

            Yes. Coroners and Justice Act 2009, I know...

            The definition of a prohibited pornographic image is this:

            "An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

            Just so I'm clear - you're ok with pornographic images of children as long as they're not in photographic format?

            1. Graham Marsden

              Re: @Ross K - for some definition of paedophile...

              > Just so I'm clear - you're ok with pornographic images of children as long as they're not in photographic format?

              No, and please don't try to use Straw Man arguments like that on me, I get enough of them from a certain other poster...

              Since you seem to be at least passingly familiar with the law you will also know that it is (as I alluded to in my post) already an offence to have drawn images which were eg traced from a photograph and I don't have a problem with that, because that was actually abuse of a child.

              What I *do* have a problem with is laws criminalising something based on someone's completely subjective impression of what a fictitious image looks like or, indeed, if some in government get their way, a fictional *description*, which could end up with possession Nabakov's Lolita being a criminal offence!

              That is going into the realms of Thought Crime.

              1. Ross K Silver badge
                WTF?

                Re: @Ross K - for some definition of paedophile...

                What I *do* have a problem with is laws criminalising something based on someone's completely subjective impression of what a fictitious image looks like or, indeed, if some in government get their way, a fictional *description*, which could end up with possession Nabakov's Lolita being a criminal offence!

                The definition of a prohibited pornographic image, according to the Act, is clear enough to me.

                The image "must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal."

                That word reasonably means that a reasonable person - the man in the street - would find the image of a minor to have been produced for the purpose of sexual arousal.

                So stop with the drama and the hyperbole. You're highly unlikely to be prosecuted for the possession of anime, or a book for grown-ups with words instead of pictures.

                Don't take my word for it. Go pay a solicitor for an hour of his time and see what he says.

                1. Graham Marsden

                  Re: @Ross K - for some definition of paedophile...

                  The word "reasonably" would laughable in this context if it wasn't such a fraught subject, because it is blatantly obvious that this is a subject about which it is virtually *impossible* to hold a "reasonable" discussion of!

                  The average man in the street/ on the Clapham Omnibus etc has had their viewpoint of the subject so skewed by the witch-burning tabloids and the like that even nearly a decade ago we had the nonsense of Julia Somerville being questioned by the Police over nude photos of her daughter in the bath

                  Now with the whole Jimmy Saville/ Rolf Harris/ whoever case, do you *really* think that things have or will change at all? The "reasonable" person in the street will see "naked child - child porn".

                  And don't forget that on the COPINE Scale even images that show "Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness" are can be rated as Class 1 Child Pornography if someone else considers that they are "inappropriately" connected with other images.

                  > You're highly unlikely to be prosecuted for the possession of anime, or a book for grown-ups with words instead of pictures.

                  "Highly unlikely" (in your opinion) != "Not going to happen" and it doesn't even matter if you're *not* prosecuted for it because if someone is even *arrested* on suspicion, that's enough for some people who will think "there's no smoke without fire" and will ostracise them, fire them, ruin their lives and their careers...

                  That is the sad state of affairs that the "Won't Someone Think of the Children" mentality has got us into.

                  EDIT - ADDENDUM

                  Oh, PS, I've just seen the following from you...

                  > Judging by the downvoting of posts condemning child porn, it would indeed seem like there are more than a few deviants on here who like that kind of thing.

                  So much for "reasonable"! They disagree with your points, therefore they're into child porn...

                  I rest my case.

                  1. Ross K Silver badge
                    FAIL

                    Re: @Ross K - for some definition of paedophile...

                    The word "reasonably" would laughable in this context if it wasn't such a fraught subject,

                    blah blah blah...

                    I rest my case.

                    TL:DR

                    God, I wish The Register had some kind of ignore list so I didn't have to come across you again - it's getting kind of tedious.

                    Enjoy your "big eyes" anime... Ta ta.

                    1. Graham Marsden
                      Boffin

                      Re: @Ross K - for some definition of paedophile...

                      > God, I wish The Register had some kind of ignore list so I didn't have to come across you again - it's getting kind of tedious.

                      Yes, I've noticed that some people on here don't like it when people actually *question* their viewpoints and point out the blatant flaws in their arguments.

                      The witch burnings are over there on the Daily Mail pages --->

                      Oh and another PS: See this article: "Today's Facebook fury: Coppertone-like baby pic ban baffles US mom" from El Reg just last week.

                      I'm sure that that ban resulted from the actions of "reasonable" people too...

                      1. Faye Kane ♀ girl brain

                        Re: @Ross K - for some definition of paedophile...

                        ==-

                        The presumptuous, loudmouth bast ards always run away when you throw them up against a logical wall and hold a mirror up to their scowling, disingenuous faces.

                    2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

                      Re: @Ross K - for some definition of paedophile...

                      TL:DR

                      I wish The Register had some kind of ignore list so I didn't have to come across you again

                      Classic. You can't be bothered to read comments that don't fit with your preconceived opinions, and just want to pretend that the people who disagree with you aren't there.

                      That's a pretty clear definition of "bigot".

                    3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                      Unhappy

                      Re: @Ross K - for some definition of paedophile...

                      "God, I wish The Register had some kind of ignore list so I didn't have to come across you again - it's getting kind of tedious."

                      It does, but I reserve mine for stupid people, not people I disagree with. So far only one poster has managed to consistently post drivel so stupid that ignoring them means I know I'm missing nothing of any interest.

                      The fact you would use if to ignore anyone's PoV you disagreed with suggests an inability to deal with any other PoV but your own. Not a healthy situation in a modern urban society.

                      I've found Graham's comments to be quite thoughtful and sensible.

                      Yours OTOH come across as unbalanced and excessive. The group of people I've seen with those reactions (who'd I'd say are entitled to them) are those who've actually been abused.

                      Everyone's entitled to their PoV but if that's an experience you've had then let's abandon any pretense your view point is objective, shall we? For you it will never be.

                  2. Faye Kane ♀ girl brain

                    Re: @Ross K - for some definition of paedophile...

                    ==-

                    And everyone here agrees with this, 19 to 3 (so far).

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @Ross K - for some definition of paedophile...

                  > That word reasonably means that a reasonable person - the man in the street - would find the image of a minor to have been produced for the purpose of sexual arousal.

                  Are most people on the street reasonable? If it were majority vs minority on everything we'd have the death penalty back tomorrow. I've no figures for how many people enjoy looking at manga, but say it's 1%.. It wouldn't surprise me if the bulk of the other 99% would say only twisted people would look at it if the images were of a sexual nature. Would you want to take your chances in front of a jury with it? I wouldn't!

                  > Don't take my word for it. Go pay a solicitor for an hour of his time and see what he says.

                  The same solicitor, if approached by a say a parent complaining re: the images would give the reverse argument that "Blimey, we could have this guy for looking at this stuff.. Any reasonable person can see these are sick!" IOW, a solicitor will largely tell you what you want to hear, so long as your wallet entitles you to his time.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: for some definition of paedophile...

          > Not to mention that if you find images of children being abused to be titillating, you most likely have some serious psychological issues.

          Maybe yes, maybe no.

          Lots of perfectly healthy people out there enjoy very healthy sex lives involving violence, such as flogging and queening and the like. Doesn't make them "bad" people.

          That's not even going into the fetishes enjoyed widely in the Japanese community involving women that look suspiciously like little girls.

          Sexual fantasies can seem very bizarre and disturbing to other people. It's a normal mental condition that most people experience from time to time.

          As long as they stay fantasies, there is no problem when children are involved.

          1. h4rm0ny

            Re: for some definition of paedophile...

            >>"Maybe yes, maybe no. Lots of perfectly healthy people out there enjoy very healthy sex lives involving violence, such as flogging and queening and the like. Doesn't make them "bad" people."

            Congratulations - you just associated BDSM with paedophilia. And a million kinky people who'd been trying to disassociate their interests from real world abuse and harming of children place their faces in their palms once more.

            Whether some people express their sexual interest in unusual ways or no, it doesn't link that interest to sexual attraction to prepubescents. Very different things.

            Aside from "how" being a very qualitatively different thing from "to what", there's the clear and obvious difference that sex between adults can be consensual. Regardless of how odd particular practices may appear to some. Children can never be consenting. Sexual interference with a child is harmful to the child.

            So I don't think the BDSM scene will particularly like the comparison.

            >>That's not even going into the fetishes enjoyed widely in the Japanese community involving women that look suspiciously like little girls.

            If the Japanese do it, it's normal. Fantastic argument! *nods slowly*

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: for some definition of paedophile...

              > Congratulations - you just associated BDSM with paedophilia. And a million kinky people who'd been trying to disassociate their interests from real world abuse and harming of children place their faces in their palms once more.

              Is paedophilia in the strictest sense something that should be against the law?

              As long as it doesn't involve the abuse of children, why would it ever be deemed illegal?

              This is the real problem with having laws that are not centred squarely on the behaviour that is deemed antisocial, we have comments like this.

              If a person likes to look at children and drawings/photographs of children in the privacy of their own home to gain sexual arousal and as long as no child abuse is ever committed, then where is the crime? Just because *you* think it is wrong doesn't mean that it is for everyone else.

              Exactly the same arguments used to be trotted out about homosexuality: "I think sex with a guy is gross, so there should be a law against it." It makes just as much sense in that situation as it does here.

              Dealing with child abuse is a hard problem to solve. Making laws about peripheral activities that don't involve children directly is evading the hard question about what we do about the abuse of children (and of anyone else for that matter.)

              Abusing children is already against the law and has been for decades and the penalties are stiff. Yet we *still* have child abuse. Criminalising *other* people not abusing children is not going to solve this problem.

              1. h4rm0ny

                Re: for some definition of paedophile...

                "Is paedophilia in the strictest sense something that should be against the law? As long as it doesn't involve the abuse of children, why would it ever be deemed illegal?"

                You've entirely shifted the goalposts from what you argued and what I challenged. You attempted to argue that someone sexually attracted to prepubescents may not have psychological problems and you tried to draw an equivalence to bondage games between consenting adults. I pointed out that they were stupid. Now you quote me and respond whether paedophillia "in the strictest sense" should be criminalized. What you write here in no way counters what I said nor supports your original attempt to normalize paedophillia. Attempts plural, actually, given your other attempts.

                "Exactly the same arguments used to be trotted out about homosexuality: "I think sex with a guy is gross, so there should be a law against it." It makes just as much sense in that situation as it does here."

                No it does not because adults can consent. That has already been pointed out to you but you prefer to ignore that sexual interest from an adult to a child is harmful to the child. That doesn't depend on any repugnance I or others feel or which you may not share. It doesn't depend on any religious belief that homosexuality will damn someone's soul. It depends on one very simple principle - protecting children.

                You see, you blend your topics - apparently under the impression it's not noticed. One strain of your argument is that if it's just drawings of children then no children are actually harmed. And then there's this whole other strain where you repeatedly attempt to segue from that into normalization of paedophilia, that perhaps it isn't a serious psychological disorder, that who is someone to say that it is wrong. As shown there are clear reasons why it is and it's neither a good analogy to talk about BDSM nor about homosexuality.

                And I think both homosexual people and BDSM crowd who have long had to struggle to convince outsiders that paedophilia isn't a part of their scene don't particularly want you trying to re-associate that.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: for some definition of paedophile...

                  "That has already been pointed out to you but you prefer to ignore that sexual interest from an adult to a child is harmful to the child. "

                  The Sexual Offences Act 2003 widened the definition of "child" to include anyone under 18 - rather than the previous "under 16". Given that the age of consent is 16 then an over-16 person can have sex with a 16/17 year old - but not produce a picture of them. However - if the couple are married then the law has an exemption that an "indecent" picture of the young spouse - is NOT indecent. If they are not married then it is indecent.

                  At least one UK conviction hinged on pictures of men "looking under 18" - even though the web site complied with the USA legal certification that their models were at least 18.

                  1. h4rm0ny

                    Re: for some definition of paedophile...

                    >>"The Sexual Offences Act 2003 widened the definition of "child" to include anyone under 18 - rather than the previous "under 16"

                    Maybe, but I referred several times in my post which you quote to prebubescents. Paedophilia, which is the word I used, describes sexual attraction to those who have not gone through puberty, generally aged 11 or less. You can check that definition on Wikipedia if you need to. Despite some people interested in big headlines trying to use it for any old underaged sex, much like the US definition of "terrorist" gets applied to occupying armies like the Islamic State, it still has a proper meaning.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: for some definition of paedophile...

                      "Paedophilia, which is the word I used, describes sexual attraction to those who have not gone through puberty, generally aged 11 or less. "

                      We both agree on that dictionary definition of "paedophilia". To which would be added "hebephilia" for 12 to about 15 - and "ephebephilia" for about 16 to 20.

                      The media, institutions, and the public do not usually draw any distinctions - using a blanket "paedophilia" for anything that the law says is the illegal age range in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 viz "under 18 or appearing so".

                      The Act itself does not use the word "paedophilia" - it talks of images that are "indecent" and "children", The age range for a "child" is defined as anyone "under 18" or appearing to be so.

                      Prior to that Act the offence criteria were differentiated by "indecent" for under 16 - and "obscene" for 16/17 year olds. Over the age of consent teenagers, aged 16/17, sending sexts are therefore breaking this law - unless they are married to each other. (Is that exemption Northern Ireland only?)

                      It would often appear that the terms "paedophilia", "indecent", or even "obscene" - are used as emotive terms to justify what appear to be vested interests. There is no reference as to whether the Man on the Clapham Omnibus would agree if the material was presented to them. When presented with actual images Crown Court juries often refuse to convict. The CPS can try to minimise such defeats by playing the permitted angle that such images are not in themselves "indecent" - but what was in the defendant's mind when viewing them was "indecent".

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: for some definition of paedophile...

                  > You've entirely shifted the goalposts from what you argued and what I challenged.

                  No, what I argue is perfectly easy to comprehend. Sexual abuse and looking at child porn are different. One is clearly abuse and one clearly isn't. I don't know what it is about this that you don't understand.

                  The main justifications trotted out about why looking at child porn should be illegal are twofold:

                  1) The existence and desire for child porn is fuelling the abuse of children to satisfy that need. There may be some validity to this argument. But it is a total abdication of trying to solve the core problem of abuse. Just because someone looks at child porn doesn't mean that they purchased it and therefore fuelled the problem. There is an assumption of guilt. Additionally, the law as it stands in the UK includes images that are not linked to child abuse at all, such as cartoons.

                  2) "People who look at child porn are perverts" and therefore should be jailed/put on a sex offenders register because we can't trust them. *THIS* argument smacks of exactly what used to be said about homosexual people. The psychology of paedophilia is not an exact science. I personally can't understand why someone would be aroused by a pre-pubescent child. However, there is a metric shitload of other things that people are turned on by that don't "do it" for me and I would never, ever be so arrogant as to label those people perverts.

                  Since manga and anime is so popular in Japan and, increasingly the rest of the world, I would not be so bold as to say the "childlike" images often portrayed are child pornography. However, many would and I worry that increasingly these people are getting their way.

                3. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: for some definition of paedophile...

                  > And I think both homosexual people and BDSM crowd who have long had to struggle to convince outsiders that paedophilia isn't a part of their scene don't particularly want you trying to re-associate that.

                  Who is trying to associate gay and BDSM people with paedophilia and why would they do that?

                  The only connection that I made in this respect is the extent to which all these groups are castigated in society and the similar arguments used by their detractors to denigrate them. Personally, I think this is a problem for society rather than any of these particular groups.

                  Any other connection that you think I draw is entirely of your own imagining.

                4. Faye Kane ♀ girl brain

                  Re: for some definition of paedophile...

                  ==-

                  > No it does not because adults can consent.

                  So can 16 year-old girls. But you offhandedly dismiss their opinions and substitute your own. You DEFINE harmless acts enthusiastically participated in as "abuse", then take a smug, arrogant attitude about your "logical" conclusions.

                  > you prefer to ignore that sexual interest from an adult to a child is harmful to the child.

                  It's not a fact when the "child" —who has been enjoying sex for years— disagrees vehemently and participates enthusiastically. It is not a fact when no one in the countries where they create these videos thinks anything of it. It is not a fact when opinions like yours are downvoted here 10 to 1.

                  Your "fact" is not a fact at all. It is an OPINION — a sick, ugly one which denies the manifestly obvious: that other people are having fun doing the most harmless, joyous thing in life, and you want to force your twisted, evil, suppressive will on them.

                  You deserve to be spit on.

                  -faye

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: for some definition of paedophile...

                "Is paedophilia in the strictest sense something that should be against the law?"

                Paedophilia is not and has never been against the law.

                Because it's a sexual orientation - being attracted to pre-pubescent children. Incidentally this means sex with a 14/15 year old is not paedophilic unless they're a really late developer. Just illegal in most of the western hemisphere.

                The actual crime is child molestation/rape, in much the same way it is not illegal to be gay or straight, but gay or straight rape is illegal.

                And attached to that is child porn, which in most cases depicts the illegal act of child rape, though Australia has a couple of humdingers where people have been prosecuted for possessing child porn cartoons, which is the very definition of a victimless crime.

                Most paedophiles are not child molestors in the same way most men do not rape a cute girl whenever she walks past.

                Likewise many child molestors are not paedophiles - they have no specific interest in pre-pubescent children, they're just easier to ensnare, blackmail or snatch off the street as rape victims than a female adult who has her wits about her.

                Mine's the one with the dictionary in the pocket.

                1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

                  Re: for some definition of paedophile...

                  "Paedophilia is not and has never been against the law. Because it's a sexual orientation - being attracted to pre-pubescent children."

                  This is not correct, at least not in this country. Because to possess a picture of a child in normal circumstances is not criminal but to possess the same picture and being turned on by it is a criminal offense. So the crime here is simply being sexually attracted.

                  Paedophilia is a wonderful tool for any government because it elicits such a strong instinctive reaction in normal people not afflicted by it. We have instincts to protect the young and to safeguard the bloodlines, so if someone says "we need to do this and this or otherwise children will get hurt" it gets swallowed by the general public without much questioning.

                  At the same time, arguably, preventing paedophiles from accessing pictures simply means that more of them will be more likely to go over the threshold and start abusing real children.

                  Paedophilia is a mental disorder and you first must become a paedophile and only then you might want to start seeing CP, not the other way round. So, preventing you from seeing CP pictures means nothing if you are not a paedophile and will do nothing to stop from you being a paedophile if you are one already.

                  1. h4rm0ny

                    Re: for some definition of paedophile...

                    >>"Paedophilia is a mental disorder and you first must become a paedophile and only then you might want to start seeing CP, not the other way round. So, preventing you from seeing CP pictures means nothing if you are not a paedophile and will do nothing to stop from you being a paedophile if you are one already"

                    Do you have any medical background to make such a claim? Because there are many areas where repeated exposure stimulates interest and habitualizes that interest. Similarly that normalization of something increases someone's likelihood of engaging in such activity.

                    1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

                      Re: for some definition of paedophile...

                      "Do you have any medical background to make such a claim?"

                      No.

                      "Because there are many areas where repeated exposure stimulates interest and habitualizes that interest."

                      I totally reject this. You need to be pre-disposed to like something in order to like it when you see it, not the other way round. All the widely publicised anti-porn, anti-computer-games, anti-violent-video studies I have ever heard of, totally and manifestly fail to test or control for pre-disposition.

                      "Similarly that normalization of something increases someone's likelihood of engaging in such activity."

                      Not just any someone's - only those who are already pre-disposed to that. So, if you declare paedophilia normal you may see all the paedos coming out of the closets but you will not increase the ratio of paedos within the population.

                2. Graham Marsden

                  @AC - Re: for some definition of paedophile...

                  > Australia has a couple of humdingers where people have been prosecuted for possessing child porn cartoons, which is the very definition of a victimless crime.

                  Even better, at least a couple of them were for possession of pictures of Bart and Lisa Simpson! See this article from El Reg in 2010

                  Oh, BTW, whilst using google to look up that link, the first result that came up is an Ad from Google "Warning - Child abuse imagery is illegal‎"! Probably got myself added to another watch list...

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: for some definition of paedophile...

              > Aside from "how" being a very qualitatively different thing from "to what", there's the clear and obvious difference that sex between adults can be consensual.

              You are conflating the abuse of children with looking at child porn. They are not the same thing.

              You may argue that the creation of child pornography is child abuse, and for the most part this is certainly true.

              But if all child abuse were stopped tomorrow, there would still be gigabytes of child porn out on t'interwebs.

              If the problem of child abuse were to be solved tomorrow, then clearly if you consider that child abuse is the core issue, looking at child porn, although unpleasant to you, should not be illegal.

              1. Faye Kane ♀ girl brain

                Yours is the popular opinion!

                ==-

                Look at the upvote/downvote ratio to your comment. Virtually everyone agrees with you. Essentially everyone thinks the CP laws are ridiculous, at least for willing post-pubescent porn. Yet we're all so afraid of our own governments that we'll never say so. Only in anonymity will anyone tell the truth.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: Faye Re: Yours is the popular opinion!

                  "Look at the upvote/downvote ratio to your comment. Virtually everyone agrees with you....." And isn't it such a great representation of the voting public? Oh, no it's not. Sorry to break it to you, but basing 'popularity' of an idea on a tiny subset of the population is what gets the sheep a bad name. In the UK, the age of consent has fluctuated through the years as part of the democratic debate, especially as with the leveling of hetero and homosexual ages of consent.

          2. Ross K Silver badge

            Re: for some definition of paedophile...

            Lots of perfectly healthy people out there enjoy very healthy sex lives involving violence, such as flogging and queening and the like. Doesn't make them "bad" people.

            With children? There's nothing healthy about sex with children, or violence towards children.

            Sorry you think otherwise...

            1. Faye Kane ♀ girl brain

              Re: for some definition of paedophile...

              Note that:

              1) You had to include "violence towards children" to make your position sound less ridiculous. No one anywhere advocates violence toward children.

              2) Equally dishonest: when you use the word "children", one thinks of 10 year-olds. In fact, nearly all so-called "CP" is made with 15-16 year-olds who do it for a living legally and openly in a country where the management is less insane.

              Your pontification is just ugly bait-and-switch, and real people, innocent people, suffer for your sick obsession with what other people look at while masturbating.

              -faye

          3. Faye Kane ♀ girl brain

            Re: for some definition of paedophile...

            ==-

            > fetishes enjoyed widely in the Japanese community involving women that look suspiciously like little girls.

            It's only "suspicious" to fuc ked up, sick westerners. The age of consent in Japan is 13 — probably because it's a more civilised country than England.

            In America — a completely uncivilized country — any photos of a 17 year-old girl will get you horrible, draconian punishment under federal law, even though in all states you could have sex with and marry the same girl.

            Right now in Virginia, they're prosecuting a 17 year-old boy for "producing child pornography" because he sent a dick photo to his girlfriend who he's having perfectly legal sex with. The poor kid will have to register as a sexual predator for the rest of his life and be denied jobs.

            Then the bast ards have the gall to use this as an example of "why sending naked pictures" is dangerous. The only "danger" is from the twisted fu cks in the republican party.

            Last year, they convicted a high-school senior girl of "producing child pornography" because she sent a naked pic to her fiancee, even though both sets of parents knew they were having legal sex and thought it perfectly okay.

            THIS is the evil sickness. Looking at photographs of other human beings' bodies isn't.

            And you garbage who jump on this insane bandwagon to assuage your guilt about yanking off to teenage girl pix yourselves are worse than anyone else.

            -faye kane ♀ girl brain

        3. Faye Kane ♀ girl brain

          Re: for some definition of paedophile...

          ==-

          > Not to mention that if you find images of children being abused to be titillating, you most likely have some serious psychological issues.

          Note that people like you redefine "abused" to mean "having sex and obviously enjoying it," which describes all the 16 year-old girls in Russian porn. (Where the age of consent is 14. It's 13 in Japan).

          You're one of the same people who define consensual sex as "rape" when the same two people could get married in most European countries.

          We EVOLVED to want to have sex after puberty. Men are genetically programmed to lust after pubescent girls. 14 or 15 is when girls became mothers before the recent, thin, hypocritical veneer of "civilization" infected the planet.

      4. Jonathan Richards 1

        Re: for some definition of paedophile...

        Leaving aside cartoons etc., every picture of child abuse, from which people profit, is made at the moment of some poor child suffering actual abuse. In the sick marketplace for such images, the suppression effort is being aimed at both suppliers and consumers, in an effort to stop the latter from becoming abusers and suppliers in turn.

        I'm with everyone who wants to see the real perverts meet justice, and with everyone who doesn't want by-standers caught up in some indiscriminate trawl based on dodgy evidence. But this is what rules of evidence, and courts, are for.

      5. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Childcatcher

        Re: for some definition of paedophile...

        "Throw the book at child molesters and abusers, but looking at pictures being a crime is a step too far."

        Err..

        You are aware that in the UK looking at cartoons of underage figures that are a)Cartoons and b)Not human is already a criminal offense.

        You weren't.

        Well ignorance of the law is no defense.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: for some definition of paedophile...

          > You are aware that in the UK looking at cartoons of underage figures that are a)Cartoons and b)Not human is already a criminal offense.

          > You weren't.

          > Well ignorance of the law is no defense.

          Err, yes I did and I don't think it is right.

          Not sure what your point is or were you being sarcastic?

    3. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: for some definition of paedophile...

      the bit about catching people before they cross the line, it has a delicious Minority Report to it

      Except that it didn't say catching, it said influencing, i.e. "think before you click, we may be watching you".

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: for some definition of paedophile...

      I thought 4chan users were kids themselves...

      It does make me wonder whether they've done something along these lines on Tor sites, though. A clear net URL which, when accessed through Tor, says something like "sorry, this page cannot be accessed via Tor", forcing the user to switch back to their usual web browser.

      1. Faye Kane ♀ girl brain

        Re: for some definition of paedophile...

        That's a giveaway that the site is a government honeypot entrapment. A real porn site doesn't care what browser you use.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Faye Re: for some definition of paedophile...

          "That's a giveaway that the site is a government honeypot entrapment......" Wow, the paranoia!

          "....A real porn site doesn't care what browser you use." So blinkered! Apart from real sites that like to know because they want to plan their future content on browser features that may not be suitable for every browser, so knowing what is popular and working is useful data, plenty of 'real' porn sites are riddled with malware, and they are checking your browser and OS so they can ram a tailored load of malware not your system. Duh!

  6. Version 1.0 Silver badge

    I'm burning my record covers now

    Goodbye Blind Faith, Goodbye Indelibly Stamped and Nevermind - next stop the British Museum and then all those church roofs with naked children laughing at the parishioners down below.

    Odd that as the punishments and laws become more draconian, we seem to be getting more and more people committing the crimes? Is the problem them, or is it us?

  7. Ross K Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Lot Of Sick F*cks Out There...

    The NCA added it had manacled 660 people throughout the UK and said that doctors, teachers, scout leaders, ex-cops and care workers were among the cuffed suspects.

    Only 39 individuals were on the Registered Sex Offenders' list, said the NCA.

    660 suspected paedophiles is a lot of people.

    The fact that only 39 of that number were registered sex offenders is mind-boggling.

    I hope people don't start running pediatricians out of town again. :(

    1. Indolent Wretch

      Re: Lot Of Sick F*cks Out There...

      An unfortunate upshot will be you'll have 600 odd suspected paedophiles for a very long time. The police, courts and CPS will take forever to process through a list that long. By the time that's finished the ones who were blameless will have their lives mainly destroyed.

      I hope a big helping of common sense was involved this time when they decided who to round up.

      Pity the poor sod who left his WiFi open because "whats the harm".

      1. frank ly Silver badge

        Re: Lot Of Sick F*cks Out There...

        It's interesting that there weren't any cops in the bag, but ex-cops. Does retiring from the police force make a person prone to paedophilia? Perhaps the police have enough reputational problems going on that they don't want the embarassment of arresting serving police officers.

    2. Tom 35 Silver badge

      Re: Lot Of Sick F*cks Out There...

      Only ex-cops?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        ... and no politicians, lawyers, judges, ex- or otherwise?

    3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Meh

      Re: Lot Of Sick F*cks Out There...

      "660 suspected paedophiles is a lot of people.

      The fact that only 39 of that number were registered sex offenders is mind-boggling.

      I hope people don't start running pediatricians out of town again. :("

      What an astonishingly balanced post.

  8. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    Major breakthrough in formal logic

    >"unambiguous" list of terms that would clearly lead to child abuse images online

    There exists a finite set of terms which leads ONLY to illegal images online?

    Somebody call Godel - it seems he was wrong.

    Can't be long before we have a unambiguous list of image parameters that make an image illegal porn

    1. ElReg!comments!Pierre Silver badge

      Re: Major breakthrough in formal logic

      "Can't be long before we have a unambiguous list of image parameters that make an image illegal porn "

      Oh, we do have one. There you go:

      1) we need to pass a controversial law

      2) 1, and we overplayer the terrorist threat already

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What is the solution?

    If a certain proportion of people born are paedophiles.

    And a proportion of those commit assaults on minors.

    Then this problem will always be with us.

    What is the solution?

    Personally I would like to know what proportion of the population are paedophiles and what proportion of these commit assaults...

    1. Fibbles

      Re: What is the solution?

      Whilst we should always be locking up people who commit actual assaults, it seems to me that we should be offering psychological help to the rest. If someone is showing paedophilic tendencies (viewing child pornography for example,) it seems better for society as a whole to offer them help with dealing with their problem whilst taking steps to keep them away from temptation such as barring them from certain jobs. Publicly shaming paedophiles when there's been no actual victim just drives them underground, causing them to form social connections with other underground paedophiles leading to the reinforcement of undesirable behaviours.

      The above probably isn't going to be a popular opinion any time soon. Look at it this way though; sometimes schizophrenics freak out and kill people but when we identify somebody with the condition who hasn't actually committed a crime we offer them help, we don't drag them through the courts whilst naming and shaming them in the news.

      1. squigbobble

        Re: What is the solution?

        There is psychological help; people caught with teh CP are now more likely to be put on probation with a treatment course (there's an Internet Sex Offenders Treatment Programme) than in previous years. They still get a criminal record and got on the Sex Offender's Register, though. Obviously, if they're making it or distributing it (especially for gain) they'll get the book thrown at them. It's akin to sending junkies to rehab while putting the hammer down on the dealers and manufacturers.

  10. John 156
    Childcatcher

    First things first

    When are high profile practising paedophiles going to be arrested or do we have to wait for their demise in all cases to find out how shocking their crimes were? I have a very strong suspicion that people view material in all categories in which they would never themselves partake; however there are those who pose as fine upstanding members of the Community whose unpleasant proclivities in respect of children in care need to see the light of day.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: First things first

      I expect that you are correct but I would add that it is doubtful that we will ever know how many of them are from the Indian subcontinent and of a religion that must not be named.

  11. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

    Very good! 660 paedoses uncovered!

    Only 6 left to find for good measure!

    I recommend they be thrown in a river with concrete weights tied to their feet - if they are really paedos, the hideousness of their crime will force them to the surface.

    On the other hand, if they drown - they will have martyred themselves for the course of witchpaedo-hunting, so, no cause for complaints!

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Blerp

    In Scotland, there are robust methods in place to bring someone to light who may become an offender and may require intervention from some form of agency. They're called Concern forms, as part of the Interim Vulnerable Persons Database.

    So if someone has been caught dabbling in viewing pornography, but perhaps there isn't sufficient grounds to charge, they would be listed on the iVPD on a Concern form which would go to the relevant Police or non-Police agency to monitor / support / rehabilitate / etc, etc. It's more about preventing possible future offences by changing their habits and lifestyle now.

    In that sense, that's where some of those 600 odd might fall and that's no bad thing. At least these people are then known and can be monitored to a degree, and I don't mean snooping by that, but I mean regular visits from support agencies.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Blerp

      Before someone jumps on it, I meant paedophile porn or similar. Not just standard porn or else I'd be submitting my own Concern form. :)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Blerp

        "Not just standard porn or else I'd be submitting my own Concern form."

        A man was prosecuted for having viewed a web site that left pictures of men in a UK hotel room's browser cache. The prosecution alleged that the men in the picture were under 18. The defence was that the web site displayed the official USA legal certification** that all their models were provably at least 18. The man was convicted as the police and prosecution had never heard of that USA system. Presumably the same would apply to web sites showing women.

        **See 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Age & Record Keeping Information.

        As the SOA 2003 Act stands it would not be surprising for someone to be prosecuted for having pictures of over-18 women dressed up as St Trinian's girls.

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Unhappy

          Re: Blerp

          "As the SOA 2003 Act stands it would not be surprising for someone to be prosecuted for having pictures of over-18 women dressed up as St Trinian's girls."

          That's one has already happened in the US with the banging up of somewhat notorious hard core auteur "Max Hardcore" when some of his warez passed through a server in a state that has such rules.

          While he was able to prove that all performers were over 18 the law didn't care because they looked under 18 (which I think was sort of the point).

    3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Blerp

      If somebody has read the Quran or been to a mosque there may be insufficient grounds to charge - but they should be put on a watch list as a potential terrorist and this information shared with police and non-police organisations

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm also worried about the timing

    Wasn't there an investigation into the politicos in Westminster. There seemed to be a bit of a cover up going on there, so how could the police deflect attention away from that fiasco?

    I hate to think that six hundred and six sacrificial lambs have been sacrificed to save the rich and powerful, but, well the timing is suspicious.

    Anonymous in case that naked granny on the pic on my PC is younger than she looks ....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I'm also worried about the timing

      Better make sure you only keep the pics with the large air-bags then

  14. ElectricFox
    Thumb Down

    False sense of security

    "Only 39 individuals were on the Registered Sex Offenders' list, said the NCA."

    A CRB only shows that you haven't been caught. We're sleepwalking into a witch hunt of guilty unless proven innocent.

  15. Sergey 1

    Hmmm

    Totally against kiddie porn, but...

    Paedophobia in the UK has gone way to far, in my opinion. People get scared of the most innocent things - like taking someone else's child in the car out of rain, unless a parent/guardian has authorised it. In writing. And you must have TheDisclosure. Or going round every parent in an archery club, asking consent for taking photos of targets in a building where children are present. Fook sake people, stop weing wackos, not everyone is a paedo.

    Speaking of paedos, wasn't a paediatrician killed by an angry mob in Wales for being a paedo... atrician?

    IMO govt needs a scary spaghetti monster to channel your hates and worries away from itself and it's own actions, so paedos are a handy target. Not saying they are unreal or forgivable, but they certainly get too much attention, and public agitated by hysterical media bends the rules of living way out of proportion.

    1. Graham Marsden

      @Sergey 1 - Re: Hmmm

      > Speaking of paedos, wasn't a paediatrician killed by an angry mob in Wales for being a paedo... atrician?

      No, but her house was daubed with graffiti.

      See details of the Yvette Cloete case here.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hmmm

      "[...] wasn't a paediatrician killed by an angry mob in Wales for being a paedo... atrician?"

      It was a graffiti sprayed on her house. However - the lynch mob mentality is never far below the surface of human behaviour. You just need people being disaffected with their lives - then give them an officially approved scapegoat as a distraction.

      There was the recent case of a man in Bristol. His crime? Being a foreigner who kept himself to himself - who had photographed kids vandalising his garden as evidence for the police. Someone complained and the police arrested him for taking the pictures of the kids - at the station they realised their mistake and released him. Two men then beat him to death in his house. They dragged his body into the street and set it on fire. The neighbours just watched - and apparently approved of them "protecting the children".

      1. Toastan Buttar

        There was the recent case of a man in Bristol.

        "who had photographed kids vandalising his garden as evidence for the police."

        I wanted to believe that this was some kind of exaggeration or urban legend. Not so:

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10409326/Man-accused-of-being-paedophile-and-murdered-for-photographing-garden-vandals.html

    3. Tom 35 Silver badge

      Re: Hmmm

      I would not be a scout leader now if you paid me, even though I had a great peado free time as a cub and scout when I was a kid.

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: Hmmm

        @Tom

        this is a prime example of how the paedo-mongering scare tactics are forcing non-paedo's out of working with children. I have been put off for the very same reasons.

        Is it any wonder then that the only people who end up working with children are fucking paedo's?

        The whole witch-burning attitude is adding fuel to the fire.

        Most child sex abuse occurs in the home, by family or close family friends. Even when the paedo's behaviour around their children makes others in the family unit uncomfortable enough for them to suspect that it is indicative of worse behavior in private they don't do or say anything because they don't want to rock the boat, or they have something to lose themselves (typically a husband and a family reputation).

        Child sex abuse is a hideous crime, surpassed only by those who could stop it but don't.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hmmm

      "And you must have TheDisclosure. Or going round every parent in an archery club, asking consent for taking photos of targets in a building where children are present. Fook sake people, stop weing wackos, not everyone is a paedo."

      Indeed. I did some photography for a sports event on behalf of the organisers. As there were 500+competitors they simply stated on the entry form that you may be photographed and by attending you consented to this (I think it was technically "opt-in" with a tick box but the entry wouldn't be accepted if you didn't tick it). Photographers then had to fill in a form to register at the reception desk. Subsequently, every five minutes you got an official, judge or attendant asking if you'd filled in the form and wanting to see the sticker they'd put on the bottom of the camera.

      Of course, that was only enforced for people lugging DSLRs around. Never mind the kids and adults happy snapping everything in sight with their phones.

      So the lesson is... if you're a pervert, use a cameraphone - no one will ever suspect a thing.

      I think the best policy I've come across was from another Sports Governing Body - "If they're smiling, they're consenting."

      Basically don't take a bad photo of them, or one where they look grumpy or as if they're having a bad day. In that scenario you're after photos of people having fun and enjoying themselves, and people rarely complain about good photos - in fact they normally ask for a copy.

      One policy I did find making sense was the boss reported his school had banned photography at plays - not out of paedophobia or the idea a dad is going to get off to photos of his kid's classmates but because they didn't want parents climbing over each other for the best angle as per that phone advert and distracting the kids from their acting in the process.

      They had a single nominated photographer who quietly and discreetly took photos of all the kids and at the end they queued up at the back to buy prints at 50p or £1 a pop depending on size (so not ridiculous like most school photo schemes, in fact entirely reasonable given the quality of photo and print. £3-4 bought you a handful of really decent photos, instead of going home with a bunch of under/over exposed blurry camera snaps).

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: Police declined to explain how they "snared" the suspects

    >>>

    they claim to be monitoring and interdicting people using tor. I don't buy that. tor is still pretty much opaque to law enforcement.

    and whilst I'm glad they've busted a load of perverts, I'm also glad there are parts of the internet that are truly free.

    >>>

    Yes yes! But if society has decided that a law against mere exchange and possession of a certain kind of data is a grave crime, you can't allow such anonymous zones in any large network.

    If communication is truly free in any medium meaning that not all transactions have an indentifiable sender and receiver, there remain loopholes making the law less effective.

    It's interesting how far society will stretch the rationale behind mandatory data retention.

    If it's acceptable to store certain metadata today, because it will help the police catch some violations of child pornography laws, there is no logical end to data retention.

    What if or rather when a new technology makes it economical to build onion routing network with terabytes bandwidth?

    Should we all forego anonymity in order to let the government track down all pedos and add any extra 'crime' to the justification for logging everything?

    I don't think so.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: AC Re: Police declined to explain how they "snared" the suspects

      ".....tor is still pretty much opaque to law enforcement......" The problem with all such distributed systems is anyone can join the network, including law enforcement and spy agencies. All they need to do is to add a number of TOR nodes in one area, even if only temporarily, and they will start picking up (and logging, and tagging) traffic. If they push up the number of nodes to the point where they have the majority in the area and then they will capture the majority of traffic. No need to even hack or throttle the other nodes (which they can also do if they wish). And they can then map out the TOR network in that area and start tracing all the traffic. All you need is to fire up a load of VMs, one per node, and an average COTS 2-CPU server will host plenty of such VMs, and it becomes a funding race between the TORists and the authorities which the authorities will win. If they want, once they have the majority of nodes in a network, they can even mess with traffic delivery to make the users mistrust the network and abandon it. Or they can just keep on logging all the traffic for as long as they like....

      Same goes for distributed Bitcon (sic) systems such as Dark Walllet, where users group together to 'launder' their Bitcoins in groups - all the authorities have to do is create a majority of fake users in a group and they control the group. Not only can they then track all the rest of the group, they can charge all of them with conspiracy if just one of them tries to make an illegal purchase (such as drugs or kiddie porn) because the other members have deliberately joined in order to obscure what they will know are probably illegal transactions.

      Seriously, the authorities are not stupid, and they are not sitting on their hands just watching the Dark Net grow. After all, the DARPA came up with TOR in the first place.....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: AC Police declined to explain how they "snared" the suspects

        > and it becomes a funding race between the TORists and the authorities which the authorities will win.

        Let's at least make it expensive for them and set up as many relays as we can: https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-doc-relay.html.en

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Matt Bryant

        "And they can then map out the TOR network in that area and start tracing all the traffic".

        How?

        "All you need is to"...

        You seem to think that cracking TOR is a trivial process of throwing umpty-thousand exit nodes at the problem and recording all data.

        You misunderestimate* (sic) the power of the layers of the onion.

        One of the plods interviewed on telly let slip that tried and tested traditional methods were used to detect the low-hanging fruit - people operating on clearnet or making arrangements to trade with undercover cops.

        *Dubya didn't have much of a grasp of technical matters, either.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Pirate

          Re: AC Re: @Matt Bryant

          "How?....." TOR only anonymises traffic when all the nodes involved are 'good', but by inserting compromised nodes or sinkhole nodes into the network, the TOR traffic can be intercepted and both the originator and receiver found. When the TOR client on a user's system gets ready to send a message, it gets a list of nodes from the directory service, plots a route through a number of random nodes, then wraps up the message in multiple layers of encryption where each layer contains the address of the next relay node. The message is sent to the first node, the entry node, where the fist layer is decrypted to get the address to the second node; the message gets sent to the second node, again a layer is decrypted to give the address of the next relay; rinse, repeat, until you get to the exit node, where the final layer is decrypted and the address of the target client system is revealed.

          When a new node is created, it runs a speed test which the directory authority uses as a guide for how much traffic it can handle. As it ages and stabilises it may get graded up or down depending on how it performs relative to other nodes. Now, simply by putting enough entry nodes out there and you are more than likely to catch the first step and the original sender's IP address, from which you can backtrack. If you control enough of the nodes in the network you can map the network. This process was demonstrated by an ESIEA team in 2011, they simply pushed up the number of their tracking nodes in a TOR network to one third of the total (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)#Weaknesses). This process also does not get detected by tricks such as TOR Check as the nodes all are valid nodes.

          If you are really paranoid then you'll already have heard about sinkhole nodes (no, not the Shadowserver variety) where the rest of the message actually goes nowhere after it hits a sinkhole entry node - in effect, the message never leads the node until the interceptor has decrypted the final delivery address. Whilst it poses as a TOR entry node, in reality the sinkhole aims to keep the message inside it's own virtual environment by faking all the real relay nodes until the final decryption provides the receiver's address and the message. Each time a layer is decrypted a new VM on the node is given the required IP address on a private virtual LAN so that it can pretend to be the next relay node and the message goes to the next relay inside the same virtual environment; rinse, repeat, until the message is decrypted enough to cough out the final destination address. Now the private virtual LAN can be dropped and the message sent direct to the recipient, who thinks it has come across the TOR network safely and anonymously, only the interceptors have the originating and delivery addresses and will have kept a copy of the message for analysis. If end-to-end encryption has not been used then the message can be read immediately. You can boost the chances of capturing messages with your sinkhole by DDoSing other entry nodes. If your sinkhole is sitting on a really fast link then the bwauths and TOR directory authority will start logging it as a 'fast' node and start sending more and more traffic to it, but DDoSing other entry nodes will make your sinkhole look 'faster' as well. Unless the users get suspicious and run a TOR Check then the sinkhole will go unnoticed.

          Also, as your sinkhole has unwrapped each layer of the encryption 'onion' it has given the interceptor the address of a real node - pretty soon the interceptor has a nice database of real node addresses and identities which can be hacked, DDoSed or legally attacked. Rumors say the Chinese are keen on sinkholes as a way of identifying TOR servers used by Chinese dissidents.

          ".....Dubya didn't have much of a grasp of technical matters...." Please name a POTUS that ever has. And please don't even pretend Obambi does.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Retro...

    I wonder if the police have the skills and experience anymore, to do real police work which doesn't involve hoovering data from the comfort of a nice office ?

    I suspect that any serious child porn network (and like any prohibited substance, you can bet criminals are there to make money out of it - damn the morality) will have reverted to old stylee mailing lists, and postal distribution via accommodation addresses. As, indeed, will the terrorists.

    I feel so much safer.

    1. squigbobble

      Re: Retro...

      Royal Mail keeps a database of where every item was posted from and the recipient. Handy for traffic analysis.

      1. ScottME
        WTF?

        Re: Retro...

        "Royal Mail keeps a database of where every item was posted from and the recipient. Handy for traffic analysis."

        Really? Can we have a source for that assertion?

        1. MrXavia

          Re: Retro...

          "

          "Royal Mail keeps a database of where every item was posted from and the recipient. Handy for traffic analysis."

          Really? Can we have a source for that assertion?"

          I would like to know about that data too... would help me trace a few parcels that have gone missing in transit.....

        2. Old Handle

          Re: Retro...

          I don't know about the Royal Mail, but the US Postal Service does something similar:

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/postal-service-photos_n_3694589.html

          1. squigbobble

            Re: Retro...

            I might've mixed it up with that. However, the addresses are read off the packages by machine vision (supplemented by humans to cope with my mother's handwriting) for the automated sorting machinery so you already know which sorting office it entered the postal system at (pinning down the probable source to a particular region) and the destination; filling up a database with that info is all that's missing.

      2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        Re: Retro...

        Royal Mail keeps a database of where every item was posted from and the recipient.

        Royal Mail has enough trouble telling you where your parcel is today, the chance of it knowing where a parcel was three weeks ago is pretty close to nil.

  18. LucreLout Silver badge

    Sadly, this is just window dressing...

    It's better than nothing, but when, and only when, I see senior judges, MPs, and Lords being locked up for this, will I believe the problem is being taken seriously.

  19. ScottME
    Big Brother

    What worries me about this

    is the thought that in order to identify these individuals, they were presumably sifting through all sorts of Internet traffic, looking for tell-tale signs. And who knows what they spotted along the way, and may have filed away ("hello, hello, what's going on here then?") in case it may be relevant to some future investigation. The message that Big Brother is watching you certainly needs to be well understood by all Internet users.

    I'll get my tin-foil hat.

    1. MrXavia

      Re: What worries me about this

      More likely they found sources of the bad stuff (i.e. by searching for it), then tracked the users... from what I read they saved children who were being abused, and in my mind that is a good thing...

    2. Old Handle

      Re: What worries me about this

      Although this hasn't been officially confirmed, it seems likely these are simply P2P file sharers. Due to their collaborative nature, it's really quite easy to track what people are doing on those programs. Of course the anchorites would prefer to leave the impression that pretty much read anything anywhere.

  20. JeffUK

    They seem to be shy to say how many of those arrested were actually charged, and subsequently convicted of anything.

    So this story so far is that 660 people are innocent of any wrongdoing (until proven otherwise)..... which is a bit of a non-story.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Actually, this story so far is that the authorities assert that they think 660 people are guilty of a particularly unpopular crime, and that they chose to round them all up at once, which is not a non-story at all, in all kinds of quite nasty ways.

    2. squigbobble

      Patience

      The cops will still be sifting through the cack on their puters before working out what to charge them with. There's limited resource and suspected terrorists (and probably fraudsters too) are further up the priority list.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The easy way to get 600 "manufacturing and distribution" arrests is to just arrest sexting kids like they do in the states. If you are 16 or under it is illegal to snap a pick of your dick, because that is child porn and you are a filthy pedo to do so.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      " If you are 16 or under it is illegal to snap a pick of your dick, because that is child porn and you are a filthy pedo to do so."

      It's better than that for lawyers.

      Snapping. That's mfg of CP. But you're also in possession of it.

      Now if you send it to your BF/GF/Whatever that's distribution as well.

      Congratulations you (and your friends) now have multiple felony arrests. The fact that you're underage and they are as well makes no difference.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "If you are 16 or under it is illegal to snap a pick of your dick, because that is child porn and you are a filthy pedo to do so."

      In the England & Wales the illegal age range of the subject is under 18 - even though the age of sexual consent and marriage is 16. The minimum age for a criminal prosecution and being put on the Sex Offenders Register is 10.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Age of consent

    >>>

    No it does not because adults can consent. That has already been pointed out to you but you prefer to ignore that sexual interest from an adult to a child

    is harmful to the child. That doesn't depend on any repugnance I or others feel or which you may not share. It doesn't depend on any religious belief that

    homosexuality will damn someone's soul. It depends on one very simple principle - protecting children.>>>

    The problem is that the legal age of consent for having sex does not follow the age of consent for legal pornography.

    It has not always been so.

    The law should not outlaw depictions of acts which are legal to perform for the participants.

    So to the extend that child pornography is about protecting nonconsenting parties, logical consistency dictates that the age for legal pornography and doing the act must be the same.

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: Age of consent

      >>"The law should not outlaw depictions of acts which are legal to perform for the participants."

      Why shouldn't you have different legal ages for different things? When I was sixteen I may have been able to make an informed decision on whether I wanted to sleep with someone else in my class, but that does not mean I would have been in a good place to make long-term life impacting decisions about whether to do pornographic modelling.

      Also, as has been pointed out, paedophilia is not the same as underage sex. What I wrote, I wrote about paedophilia. Posting comments about actions at the age of seventeen is a long way from actually challenging what I wrote. If you want to argue about depictions of acts that have no relation to actual children, go and reply to someone else. The post that you are challenging was written to skeland who argued that paedophilia isn't a disorder.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019